IMF-BAFT Trade Finance Survey A Survey Among Banks Assessing the Current Trade Finance Environment Market Research &amp

1. IMF-BAFT Trade Finance Survey A Survey Among Banks Assessing the Current Trade Finance Environment Market Research & Intelligence for Financial Institutions

2. Study Overview & Methodology There is general agreement that the ongoing global financial crisis has produced a serious decline in the availability of trade credit along with increases in pricing. In order to better understand the current trade environment and develop actions to alleviate some of the problems associated with it, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bankers Association for Trade & Finance (BAFT) have commissioned FImetrix to conduct a survey among banks worldwide. An Internet survey questionnaire developed jointly by the IMF, BAFT, and FImetrix was administered March 10 – 23, 2009 using a sample of banks from both BAFT and FImetrix. Altogether, 44 banks completed the questionnaire from 23 countries. Most of those responding to this study are located in Western Europe and North America. Over half report worldwide assets at over US$100 billion. China leads as the most important trading partner, followed by India, Germany, USA, and Korea. Total Worldwide Assets Of Respondent Banks Expressed in US Dollars Regions Represented Bank Branch Global or SubsidiaryHeadquarters Western Europe 43% 41% North America 33% 29% Central/EasternEurope 7% 7% Latin America 7% 10% Asia 5% 0% Australia 2% 7% Middle East 2% 5% Africa 0% 2% Top Countries Mentioned as Most Important Trading Partners Participating Countries Australia Italy Spain Canada Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Chile Mexico Switzerland Denmark New Zealand Turkey France Norway U.K. Germany Portugal Uruguay Greece Romania U.S.A. Ireland Russia • Asia/Pacific Region • China 76% • India 42% • Korea 29% • Hong Kong 18% • Japan 16% • Western Europe • Germany 29% • U.K. 18% • Spain 13% • France 11% • North America • USA 29% • Mexico 13% • Central/Eastern Europe • Turkey 24% • Russia 18% • Latin America • Brazil 16% IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

3. Key Findings The survey results suggest that decreases in value of trade finance business accelerated between October 2008 and January 2009 in almost all regions.   The decline was most significant for Letters of Credit, but other product lines were adversely affected as well.  This appears to be consistent with the significant decline in the world economy and credit markets during the fourth quarter. Survey respondents cite the primary reason for the recent decline in value of transactions is a fall in the demand for trade activities (73%).  This lack of demand may help explain the softening in pricing increases.  By comparison, the top reason for declining transaction value in the previous survey was “less credit availability” (35%).  Compared with the period October 2007 to October 2008, more survey respondents cite increased capital requirements (58%, up from 42%)  and increased risk (39%, up from 23%) as the reasons for recent increases in pricing during October 2008 to January 2009).   Three in four respondents attribute the decline in value of trade transactions to decreasing demand, whereas, nearly six-in-ten attribute it to restrained credit availability. Only one in ten see the cause as economic weakness or rising global risk. IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

4. Decreased No Change Increased Changes in Value of Trade Finance Business by Product Study participants were first asked how the value of their Letter of Credit, Export Credit Insurance, and Short-term Export Working Capital business has changed over two specific time periods: October 2008 as compared to October 2007, and January 2009 as compared to October 2008. Of the three product lines evaluated, the value of Letter of Credit has decreased the most in both timeframes, with an average decrease in value in January ’09 versus Oct ’08 of 11%. Nearly 3 out of 4 banks (71%) reported a decline in L/C value. Both Export Credit Insurance and Short-term Export Working Capital experienced a slight increase in the overall value of the business in the year over year comparison from October 2007 and October 2008. This trend reversed itself in the last quarter of 2008 with a decline of 4% and 3%, respectively. Overall, there was very little noticeable change in the percentage of banks reporting an increase/decrease in their business for these two product lines between October 2007 compared to October 2008 and October 2008 compared to January 2009. Product Line Short-term Export Working Capital Letters of Credit Export Credit Insurance Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  8% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  11% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  2% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  4% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  7% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  3% IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

5. Decreased No Change Increased Changes in Value of Trade Finance Business by Region The overall value in trade finance business has declined in every region when comparing January 2009 to October 2008. The average percent of decline during this time frame is highest in Eastern Europe (down average of 13%) and lowest in the Middle East/Maghreb region (down average of 5%). It is interesting to note that the Middle East/Maghreb region is the only one where the average percent decline reported was higher in Oct ’08 vs. Oct ’07 than in the more recent timeframe (Jan ’09 vs. Oct ’08). When comparing October 2008 to October 2007, value declines are reported in all but two regions. The exceptions are South Asia, where an average increase in value of 5% is reported and Central Europe, where a very slight increase is reported. Across each of the eight geographic regions evaluated, there was a double digit change in the percentage of banks reporting a decline in the value of their trade finance business between October, 2008 and January, 2009. The largest reported difference was trade within industrialized countries. Geographic Region Latin America Industrialized Countries Change in Percent of Banks Reporting a DeclineOct ’08 vs. Jan ‘09 Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  4% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  9% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  1% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  9% IndustrializedCountries 26 Latin America 19 South Asia 19 Emerging East Asia 18 Central Europe 17 Sub-Sahara Africa 15 Eastern Europe 12 Middle East/Maghreb 10 Charts continue on next page. IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

6. Decreased No Change Increased Changes in Value of Trade Finance Business by Region . . .Continued Geographic Region Central Europe Eastern Europe Middle East & Maghreb Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  <1% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  11% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  6% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  13% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  10% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  5% South Asia Sub-Sahara Africa Emerging East Asia Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  5% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  9% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  1% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  8% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  3% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  10% IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

7. Decreased No Change Increased Changes in Value of Trade Finance Business by Corporate Customer Segment Up until October, 2008, banks were reporting an increase in the overall value of their trade finance business with their corporate customer base. This is particularly true with the large corporate segment, where there was a near double digit increase over the prior year. However, this pattern reversed itself between October, 2008 and January, 2009 when each of the corporate sectors evaluated reported a decline in value. The most noticeable change was within the large corporate segment with a -22 point swing in value. Further, the number of banks reporting a decline in value in their large corporate business was 2.5 times greater than reported in October 2008 (19% versus 49%). This compares to the prior time period when nearly six in ten reported an increase in trade finance with large corporate customers. The change in value within the other two customer segments is less severe, but still trends downward over the last quarter of 2008. Corporate Customer Segment Multi-National Corporate SME’s Large Corporate Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  1% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  6% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  9% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09 13% Overall Change in Value Oct ’07 vs. Oct ’08  3% Oct ’08 vs. Jan ’09  6% IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

8. Key Reasons for a Decline in Value of Trade Transactions A fall in the demand for trade activities 73% Less credit availability at your own institution 57% Less credit availability at your counterparty banks 57% A fall in the price of transactions 43% A shift towards cash-in-advance transactions 14% A shift toward open account 14% Economic crisis; increased risk at the global level 11% Other 11% Given a list of six factors that can affect a decline in value, nearly three in four say it is a fall in the demand for trade activities that has contributed to this decline. This is followed by less credit availability at their own institution and at counterparty banks. A few also add, in addition to the six factors listed, that the economic crisis in general has contributed to the decrease in value. Where Value of Transactions has Declined, is this due to . . .? IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

9. LC (or Documentary Credit) Impact of Recent Developments on Price of Trade Instruments Bankers were asked to evaluate the impact of recent developments in October 2008 vs. October 2007 and January 2009 vs. October 2008 on the price of trade finance by indicating the change in basis points over the costs of funds. Recent developments have clearly affected the price of trade instruments, particularly in the October 2008 to January 2009 timeframe. The average increase in basis points is especially notable with regard to Export Credit Insurance which doubled in price. Across all of the Documentary Credit instruments pricing increased, in some cases nearly double the price compared to October, 2008. Only pricing on term lending declined (albeit slightly) over the last few months of 2008. Average Basis Point Increase Over Costs IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

10. Impact of Recent Developments on Price of Trade Instruments . . . continued Oct ’07 Oct ’08 vs. Oct ’08vs. Jan ’09 Own institution’s increasedcost of funds 81% 71% Increased capital requirements 42% 58% Increased risk of trade financeproducts relative to other workingcapital lending to same non-financial corporate borrowers 23% 39% In both time periods, the majority indicate that the increase in basis points is mainly due to their own institution’s increased cost of funds. Reflecting the credit market at the end of 2008, increased capital requirements appears to have made a greater impact on price in the October 2008 to January 2009 timeframe. Those who indicated that pricing increased because of increased capital requirements were further asked how the implementation of Basel II impacted their ability to provide trade finance. Opinions are somewhat divided among the 15 who respond to this question. Four in ten say it has had no impact, while about one-third indicate a positive result and one-fourth a negative impact. Has Pricing of Trade Finance Increased Because of . . .? How Has the Implementation of Basel II Impacted Your Ability to Provide Trade Finance? No impact 40% Negative impact 33% Reduces ability to undertake newbusiness; greater restrictions andmore costly Positive impact 27% Includes more selective trade financeofferings; risk rating more individual IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

11. Composition of Trade Finance Business When asked about the composition of trade finance business in each of three time periods – October 2007, October 2008, and January 2009, open account transactions make up the largest percent of transactions in all three time periods. There is a slight decline however from October 2007 to January 2009 in the percent who mention open account transactions and a corresponding increase, though small, in the percent who cite cash-in-advance and bank-intermediated transactions. Overall, however, there is very little change in the way trade finance has been transacted since October, 2007. IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

12. Changes in Trade-related Lending Guidelines More cautious with certaincountries 83% More cautious with certainsectors 77% Requested shorter tenors 67% Requested more collateral 47% Requested more DC or LC 43% Requested more ExportCredit Insurance 37% Requested stronger covenants 20% Seven in ten say that trade-related guidelines have changed since October 2008. Of them, more that three in four say these guidelines have become more cautious with certain countries and certain sectors and two-thirds say they requested shorter tenors. Have Trade-related Guidelines Changed Since October 2008 How Guidelines Have Changed Have Seen a Change in the Probability of Defaults in Trade Finance Instruments (Jan ’09 vs. Oct ’08) Underscoring the change in lending guidelines to become more cautious, six in ten of those who say trade-related guidelines have changed since October 2008 also say they have seen a change in the probability of defaults in trade finance instruments. IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

13. Trade Finance in 2009 Bankers responding to the survey are split on their forecast for the coming year. While few expect an improving environment for trade finance in 2009, slightly more than four in ten lean toward expecting trade finance to stabilize this year, though a high percent – nearly four in ten – expect further deterioration. How Do You See Trade Finance Evolving in 2009? IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study

14. What Official Sectors Should Do with Respect to Trade Credit Financing Provide more credit lines through official bodies; take a moreactive role in alleviating credit pressures through ECAs; morelending support; MCAs provide more funding 29% Government schemes should target trade finance specifically;preferential treatment of trade transactions; more flexible supportof trade products; more pro-active policies; stronger assistancefor trade 26% Expand government guarantee programs; stronger guarantees;flexible, creative guarantees 17% Provide insurance/funding at a lower price; more involvementof government credit insurance; increase trade insurance 14% Simplify, reduce criteria; process requests more efficiently andless bureaucratically 11% Government should control it thoroughly; greater governmentinvolvement; consider government owned or backed internationaltrade bank 9% Avoid protectionism 9% Facilitate and accelerate financing to emerging markets 6% Other 20% No answer 9% In an open-ended question, respondents were asked what the official sector (government and international financial institutions) should do with respect to trade credit financing. Most offer suggestions which center around greater government involvement in providing credit, support, and policies specific to the trade finance industry. IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study